Trump's Attack

[HannahT]

That's not how the constitution works. It lists explicitly the powers of the various branches of government. War powers are reserved for Congress, the President commands the military when the Congress declares war.

I believe people are referring to the War Powers Resolution. Congress can declare war, but military actions such as this? The President has to give Congress notice within 48 hours.

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.

 

[Al Touthentop]

I believe people are referring to the War Powers Resolution. Congress can declare war, but military actions such as this? The President has to give Congress notice within 48 hours.

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.

The war powers act transfers, unconstitutionally, the powers of Congress to the president. It also prevents us from being technically at war and thus our soldiers and the President from being under any umbrella of war and thus subject to war crimes prosecutions.

Presidential War is Unconstitutional

 

[Bobber]

Is the world less safe after Trump attacked Iran?

Let's be clear. Trump didn't attack Iran. He took out one who was a designated terrorist even by the U.N. and it took place on Iraqi soil. For the reason that this guy was one of the highest ranking generals in Iran doesn't do away with the fact that he was designated a terrorist with other associations.

 

[Bobber]

The war powers act transfers, unconstitutionally, the powers of Congress to the president. It also prevents us from being technically at war and thus our soldiers and the President from being under any umbrella of war and thus subject to war crimes prosecutions.

Presidential War is Unconstitutional

This does raise an interesting question. Trump has taken out a bad actor with I believe the Constitutional right to do so. The warning of the 25 possible strike sites I'm sure would have to be defined as war in action thus needing then Congress approval. I wonder if the Democratic politicians are in really a very tough spot.

If events unfold where action genuinely is warranted and the Democrats hold back approval for political reasons I think they would have overplayed their hand. Even soft leaning Democrats will throw off their nonsense and side with the President saying enough is enough. Having said that my guess is Iran isn't going to do anything significant to retaliate. Not that they won't do anything but not enough for Trump carry out the degree of his declaration.

 

[Al Touthentop]

This does raise an interesting question. Trump has taken out a bad actor with I believe the Constitutional right to do so. The warning of the 25 possible strike sites I'm sure would have to be defined as war in action thus needing then Congress approval. I wonder if the Democratic politicians are in really a very tough spot.

If events unfold where action genuinely is warranted and the Democrats hold back approval for political reasons I think they would have overplayed their hand. Even soft leaning Democrats will throw off their nonsense and side with the President saying enough is enough. Having said that my guess is Iran isn't going to do anything significant to retaliate. Not that they won't do anything but not enough for Trump carry out the degree of his declaration.

The Democrats loved this sort of thing when Obama and Clinton were doing it. They love the war powers act because it absolves them of responsibility. But it is totally unconsitutional.

 

[The Barbarian]

Taking out the second highest official in Iran is different than killing ISIS or Al-Qaeda terrorists. The big thing is to avoid the kind of action that would give the crazy faction in Iran the upper hand. This might have been it. We'll have to see.

 

[Gwendolynz]

Let's be clear. Trump didn't attack Iran. He took out one who was a designated terrorist even by the U.N. and it took place on Iraqi soil. For the reason that this guy was one of the highest ranking generals in Iran doesn't do away with the fact that he was designated a terrorist with other associations.

Iraq is a bit odd. We need to remember that the borders in the ME were set by the British, after WWII. Not sure that I have an issue with the killing of that General, but it will have consequences. Iraq used to be 40-60% Shia. There were Christians there that spoke Aramaic.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Some context:

Stephen Kinzer, formerly of the New York Times, has graphically described the events of the 1953 coup which deposed Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh, in his: 'All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror', Wiley publishers.

This sanguinary coup-d'état was organized by Kermit Roosevelt from the American Embassy in Tehran, assisted by the CIA.

When therefore the Shah fell in 1979, this puts into context — while not justifying — the angry fervor of Iranian revolutionaries in seeing — again — the American Embassy in Tehran as a threat against their revolution and in the taking of hostages, not released until January 1981.

The US itself has subsequently had a very major part in promoting Shiite politicians in Iraq. The fact that some radical Shiite revolutionaries view US Embassies in the region as a threat to their revolution does not remotely excuse their actions.

But given the US's diplomatic record in the region, it is hard to expect, that with the US having played major roles in exacerbating Shiite fervor, Shiites in the Iranian or Iraqi governments through their diplomatic and consular representatives, will in turn simply behave in a genteel, quiescent manner.

Stephen Kinzer's sobering book is worth reading.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Here is a quote — completely unedited — showing attempts at the ruthless exercise of lethal meddling in the Middle East; the references are to former CIA head William Casey and former long-serving Saudi Ambassador in Washington, DC, Prince Bandar bin Sultan:

(Please bear in mind that this quote is completely unedited: )
.......

'The Saudis came up with an Englishman who had served in the British Special Air Services, the elite commando special operations forces. This man traveled extensively around the Middle East, and went in and out of Lebanon from another Arab state. He would be an ideal leader of a sophisticated operation. The CIA, of course, could have nothing to do with "elimination." The Saudis, if asked would back a CIA denial concerning involvement or knowledge. Liaison with foreign intelligence services was one CIA activity out of the reach of congressional oversight; Casey had flatly refused to tell the committees about this sensitive work. And in this case, the CIA as an institution did not know. Nothing was written down, there were no records. The Saudi $3 million deposited in the Geneva account was "laundered" through transfers among other bank accounts, making sure it could not be traced.
The Englishman established operational compartments to carry out separate parts of the assassination plan; none had any communication with any other except through him. Several men were hired to procure a large quantity of explosives; another man was hired to find a car; money was paid to informants to make sure they knew where Fadlallah would be at a certain time; another group was hired to design an after-action deception so that the Saudis and the CIA would not be connected; the Lebanese intelligence service hired the men to carry out the operation.
On March 8, 1985, a car packed with explosives was driven into a Beirut suburb about fifty yards from Fadlallah's high-rise residence. The car exploded, killing eighty and wounding two hundred, leaving devastation, fires and collapsed buildings. Anyone who had happened to be in the immediate neighborhood was killed, hurt or terrorized, but Fadlallah escaped without injury. His followers strung a huge "MADE IN USA" banner in front of a building that had been blown out.'
.......

The author of this quote is not some marginal, grudge-driven, blogging radical that is venting his imagination.

It's Bob Woodward.

Bob Woodward, Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981-1987, New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Tokyo: Simon and Schuster, p. 397.

(The Hollywood movie Spy Game (2001), with Robert Redford and Brad Pitt, is partly based on the US attempt to kill Sheikh Fadlallah.)

If you see history repeating itself and neo-colonial business as usual being carried out — with expected denials and moralizing against 'terrorism' — there is no need to be surprised.

Christians, be careful about what you unthinkingly support.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Iraq is a bit odd. We need to remember that the borders in the ME were set by the British, after WWII. Not sure that I have an issue with the killing of that General, but it will have consequences. Iraq used to be 40-60% Shia. There were Christians there that spoke Aramaic.

After WWI. Then they established Israel with the Balfour Declaration in 1920. Essentially anyway. Then the Jewish terrorists Irgun and the Stern gang started car bombings and wiping out entire Arab villages and their terrorism culminated with the bombing of the King David hotel. The British were finally disgusted with them and left.

Before we decimated Iraq it was the only secular Islamic country in the middle east. It had nothing to do with 9/11 and the 1991 war was one we manipulated by telling Husein we wouldn't care if he invaded Kuwait. When he did we acted like we never said such a thing and how dare he. Just look up the transcript of his meeting with State Department rep April Glaspie. It's posted on the internet.

 

[faroukfarouk]

After WWI. Then they established Israel with the Balfour Declaration in 1920. Essentially anyway. Then the Jewish terrorists Irgun and the Stern gang started car bombings and wiping out entire Arab villages and their terrorism culminated with the bombing of the King David hotel. The British were finally disgusted with them and left.

Before we decimated Iraq it was the only secular Islamic country in the middle east. It had nothing to do with 9/11 and the 1991 war was one we manipulated by telling Husein we wouldn't care if he invaded Kuwait. When he did we acted like we never said such a thing and how dare he. Just look up the transcript of his meeting with State Department rep April Glaspie. It's posted on the internet.

...which makes it a joke for anyone to claim - as it was - that Bin Laden was supposedly working with secular Iraq in planning 9/11. At the time, next to NYC, the almost next most likely place for Al Qaeda to try to hit would have been Baghdad.

But then, as regards the Iraq War, ppl have to look for reasons if they have decided to do things. As President Obama said in Washington, DC, there is a bias in this town toward war.

The killers of Lord Moyne - British minister in Cairo in WW2 - were, after their deaths and re-interment, given ceremonial honors presided over by Nobel Peace Prizewinner Yitzak Rabin.

Who was it who said? "That's the trouble with history; you end up annoying a lot of people along the way."

 

[Gwendolynz]

Some context:

Stephen Kinzer, formerly of the New York Times, has graphically described the events of the 1953 coup which deposed Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh, in his: 'All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror', Wiley publishers.

This sanguinary coup-d'état was organized by Kermit Roosevelt from the American Embassy in Tehran, assisted by the CIA.

When therefore the Shah fell in 1979, this puts into context — while not justifying — the angry fervor of Iranian revolutionaries in seeing — again — the American Embassy in Tehran as a threat against their revolution and in the taking of hostages, not released until January 1981.

The US itself has subsequently had a very major part in promoting Shiite politicians in Iraq. The fact that some radical Shiite revolutionaries view US Embassies in the region as a threat to their revolution does not remotely excuse their actions.

But given the US's diplomatic record in the region, it is hard to expect, that with the US having played major roles in exacerbating Shiite fervor, Shiites in the Iranian or Iraqi governments through their diplomatic and consular representatives, will in turn simply behave in a genteel, quiescent manner.

Stephen Kinzer's sobering book is worth reading.

America's interference in Iranian politics is inexcusable. The reason being for the oil, and that was driven by the very rich here. There is a price for this.

 

[Gwendolynz]

After WWI. Then they established Israel with the Balfour Declaration in 1920. Essentially anyway. Then the Jewish terrorists Irgun and the Stern gang started car bombings and wiping out entire Arab villages and their terrorism culminated with the bombing of the King David hotel. The British were finally disgusted with them and left.

Before we decimated Iraq it was the only secular Islamic country in the middle east. It had nothing to do with 9/11 and the 1991 war was one we manipulated by telling Husein we wouldn't care if he invaded Kuwait. When he did we acted like we never said such a thing and how dare he. Just look up the transcript of his meeting with State Department rep April Glaspie. It's posted on the internet.

And very sad.

 

[Al Touthentop]

And very sad.

It is. I get really upset when people act like we're this amazing great country because of our projection of power. We could be. If we acted more like Switzerland - not to be socialist but to stop meddling around the world as if we own it.

But we as a people tolerate this meddling. Makes us feel good about ourselves I guess. It doesn't me but many people just love the show of power.

We stood down the Soviets who had 60,000 nukes. Now we act like some Arab whose only military capability is to attach guns to migrating geese is an eminent threat to the US.

 

[Al Touthentop]

...which makes it a joke for anyone to claim - as it was - that Bin Laden was supposedly working with secular Iraq in planning 9/11. At the time, next to NYC, the almost next most likely place for Al Qaeda to try to hit would have been Baghdad.

Or somewhere in Saudi Arabia since they had allowed us to build an airbase 80 miles or so away from their holiest city. And bin Laden, who denied the attacks of 9/11 did explain that our meddling in the ME for over 80 years (at that time) was bound to cause problems for us.

But then, as regards the Iraq War, ppl have to look for reasons if they have decided to do things. As President Obama said in Washington, DC, there is a bias in this town toward war.

Which he unfortunately went along with. I did have hope. Dashed.

The killers of Lord Moyne - British minister in Cairo in WW2 - were, after their deaths and re-interment, given ceremonial honors presided over by Nobel Peace Prizewinner Yitzak Rabin.

Who was it who said? "That's the trouble with history; you end up annoying a lot of people along the way."

That's funny. It's rare though that people even pay attention to history at all.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Or somewhere in Saudi Arabia since they had allowed us to build an airbase 80 miles or so away from their holiest city. And bin Laden, who denied the attacks of 9/11 did explain that our meddling in the ME for over 80 years (at that time) was bound to cause problems for us.



Which he unfortunately went along with. I did have hope. Dashed.



That's funny. It's rare though that people even pay attention to history at all.

Stripped bear of official obfuscation, is all that is left to public policy the commercial interests of the Wall Street from which the leading OSS / CIA figures emerged? the Wall Street which spearheaded military intervention Latin America in the pre-railroad, pre-telegraph days of the California Gold Rush, when riding roughshod through Nicaragua was the quickest way to communicate with the tender prospector gentlemen of the early 19th century?

 

[Al Touthentop]

Stripped bear of official obfuscation, is all that is left to public policy the commercial interests of the Wall Street from which the leading OSS / CIA figures emerged? the Wall Street which spearheaded military intervention Latin America in the pre-railroad, pre-telegraph days of the California Gold Rush, when riding roughshod through Nicaragua was the quickest way to communicate with the tender prospector gentlemen of the early 19th century?

Anyone who thinks we've been spreading democracy around the world ought to read up about the school of the Americas. Or read the Creature of Jekyll Island to see how it was possible to finance all of that nonsense.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Anyone who thinks we've been spreading democracy around the world ought to read up about the school of the Americas. Or read the Creature of Jekyll Island to see how it was possible to finance all of that nonsense.

When US instructor of 'enhanced interrogation' techniques to the Uruguayan police Dan Mitrione was finally dispatched by enraged radicals, White Spokesman Ronald Ziegler praised his record and the gentle David Eisenhower, President Nixon's son-in-law, was sent to his funeral. In 2008 the US ambassador to Uruguay, when asked by the Uruguayan authorities for help in investigating possible CIA knowledge of the murder in cold blood of a prominent Senator's wife during a past period of alleged CIA assistance in keeping former President Méndez in power, argued for moral equivalence between deaths of Mitrione and the murdered Senator's wife.

BTW, Watergate plumber-in-chief E. Howard Hunt was previously station chief in Montevideo, Uruguay, in between helping with the CIA -sponsored coup in Guatemala ("successful") and the CIA-sponsored Bay of Pigs glorious fiasco.

Nixon later admitted to helping rig the Uruguayan elections in 1971.

 

[Gwendolynz]

Stripped bear of official obfuscation, is all that is left to public policy the commercial interests of the Wall Street from which the leading OSS / CIA figures emerged? the Wall Street which spearheaded military intervention Latin America in the pre-railroad, pre-telegraph days of the California Gold Rush, when riding roughshod through Nicaragua was the quickest way to communicate with the tender prospector gentlemen of the early 19th century?

What does God see in us. Unworthy we are.

 

[Al Touthentop]

When US instructor of 'enhanced interrogation' techniques to the Uruguayan police Dan Mitrione was finally dispatched by enraged radicals, White Spokesman Ronald Ziegler praised his commitment to democracy and the gentle David Eisenhower, President Nixon's son-in-law, was sent to his funeral. In 2008 the US ambassador to Uruguay, when asked by the Uruguayan authorities for help in investigating possible CIA knowledge of the murder in cold blood of a prominent Senator's wife during a past period of alleged CIA assistance in keeping former President Méndez in power, argued for moral equivalence between deaths of Mitrione and the murdered Senator's wife.

BTW, Watergate plumber-in-chief E. Howard Hunt was previously station chief in Montevideo, Uruguay, in between helping with the CIA -sponsored coup in Guatemala ("successful") and the CIA-sponsored Bay of Pigs glorious fiasco.

Nixon later admitted to helping rig the Uruguayan elections in 1971.

Stuff I didn't know. SMH. I do recall reading somewhere that Bush the elder was in the CIA at the time of the Kennedy assassination.

I just found an interesting article that quotes Hoover himself saying that Bush was in the CIA in 1963 and was briefed by the FBI about Cuban sentiment shortly after the assassination. Interesting reading.

https://www.cia.gov/library/reading...yD-wuglqUQ2hdz1IZM1Swh2gQRofIv3n1GoriSGCddxh4